Case summaries and commentary on recently decided criminal law cases in the Third Circuit provided by Federal Defenders and CJA Panel Attorneys.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Search and Seizure On International Waters.

The detention and search of a vessel on
international waters and the Fourth Amendment implications of that stop and search
were addressed by the Third Circuit in United
States v. Benoit, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 5273102 (3d Cir. September 19, 2013).Appellant Aundel Benoit was master of the
Laurel, a ship boarded by the U.S. Coast Guard based on a tip that the she was
being used to smuggle drugs. The tip had a complicated history – the Grenadian
government tipped the British Virgin Island authorities, who passed the tip to
the DEA, who contacted the Coast Guard.After
ordering the vessel to port and then to a boatyard, law enforcement
found a substance that tested positive for cocaine, eventually uncovering
250 packages of cocaine weighing 250.9 kilograms.Benoit was convicted of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine while on a vessel
subject to U.S. jurisdiction and aiding and abetting possession with intent to
distribute.He raised a number of issues
on appeal.

First, appellant
challenged the search of the vessel on the grounds there was no probable cause
to search the ship, challenging the reliability of the tip used to board the
Laurel.The Third Circuit noted that the
Coast Guard has extensive authority to board ships and conduct safety and
document inspections, and moreover, prevailing case law requires only
“reasonable suspicion” for a more intrusive search.While the Court agreed that the record did
not explain the basis for the Grenadian government’s tip, it still found that the
Coast Guard was reasonable in relying on the tip.The appellate court noted that the tip came
from authorities that the Coast Guard had a working relationship with in
fighting drug trafficking and this partnership gave the tip a certain credibility.
The tip, combined with Benoit’s
inconsistent answers to the Coast Guard about the ship’s voyage, gave rise to
reasonable suspicion to support the search.

Next,
Benoit challenged the chain of custody of specific evidence obtained from
Grenada, under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).However the Court found no precedent for
applying the exclusionary rule to the MLAT.Additionally, the MLAT does not provide any private rights.Moreover, Benoit offered nothing to support the
allegation that Grenadian authorities had done anything improper with the
evidence.

Third,
Benoit challenged the denial of his motion for acquittal. Specifically, he challenged
the chain of custody of the evidence.However,
the testimony from a DEA agent about delivering the evidence to a DEA lab and
handing it over to an evidence technician, combined with the DEA’s forensic
chemist’s testimony that when she received the evidence there were no signs of tampering,
was sufficient to establish proper chain of custody.He also argued the government failed to
introduce the cocaine into evidence at trial. However, the testimony of the chemist about
testing the substance and finding it was cocaine made introduction of the
cocaine itself unnecessary. Then, Benoit further argued that the government did
not show that he knew about the drugs.The Third Circuit found that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence, including the fact that Benoit was the owner of the Laurel and he had
made specific alternations to the ship, to support the jury’s finding that the
he knew about the drugs.Also, given the
relatively small size of the boat in comparison to the large amount of drugs
found aboard, made it unlikely that the master of the ship did not know about
the drugs.

Finally,
the statement in the government’s summation that the Coast Guard “saved this
country from 250 kilograms” of cocaine was harmless and the trial court's curative instruction
to jury was a sufficient remedy.
The statement was not grounds for a mistrial.